George Costanza
A Friendly Liberal
Hate crimes perpetrate rascism and discrimination and are a crime against society as a whole, therefore they should be punished more severly.
And that is all that needs to be said. Glad someone here gets it.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Hate crimes perpetrate rascism and discrimination and are a crime against society as a whole, therefore they should be punished more severly.
because members of the general population can never be victims of hate crimes.
Does this need to be commented on, or does its stupidity speak for itself?
This is simply wrong, on the face of it.
Although this dumb statement is sadly the understanding of most laymen, which leads to the problem addressed in the post below...
Charging someone with murder vice manslaughter is based on a "thought crime" also. Wanna throw those out?
I have no problem with that. Those laws are applied equally to all persons regardless of race, creed, sexual orientation, etc... Hate crimes laws are not. Apples - Oranges.
Why do you feel that hate crimes are not APPLIED equally to all persons regardless of race, creed, sexual orientation, etc.? Hate crimes make no mention of a specific race, creed, etc. Typically, a hate crime involves "a criminal offense committed against a person, property or society which is motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender's bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin."
If a homosexual attacked a heterosexual, in whole or in part because the homosexual held a bias against heterosexuals, the homosexual person would be prosecuted under hate crime laws. Same if a black person attacked a white person because of racial bias.
And by the way - the correct expression to show an illogical or incorrect comparison is, "apples and ELEPHANTS," not "apples and oranges." Apples and oranges are both fruits. Apples and elephants are different things entirely.
When one uses that expression, they are saying: "You are comparing two things that are totally different and, therefore, your comparison is specious. You might as well be comparing apples to elephants."
No extra charge for the linguistics lesson.
Explain to me how hate crime legislation violates the Equal Protection clause when the hate crime laws do not mention race.
Unequal enforcement is the answer. If you have a law that's facially neutral but always used to hurt a particular group, that's a violation. Check the chinese laundry case.
Hate Crimes Violate the 14th amendment
I have no problem with that. Those laws are applied equally to all persons regardless of race, creed, sexual orientation, etc... Hate crimes laws are not. Apples - Oranges.
Why do you feel that hate crimes are not APPLIED equally to all persons regardless of race, creed, sexual orientation, etc.? Hate crimes make no mention of a specific race, creed, etc. Typically, a hate crime involves "a criminal offense committed against a person, property or society which is motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender's bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin."
If a homosexual attacked a heterosexual, in whole or in part because the homosexual held a bias against heterosexuals, the homosexual person would be prosecuted under hate crime laws. Same if a black person attacked a white person because of racial bias.
And by the way - the correct expression to show an illogical or incorrect comparison is, "apples and ELEPHANTS," not "apples and oranges." Apples and oranges are both fruits. Apples and elephants are different things entirely.
When one uses that expression, they are saying: "You are comparing two things that are totally different and, therefore, your comparison is specious. You might as well be comparing apples to elephants."
No extra charge for the linguistics lesson.
Thanks for the lesson is pedantry, you are truly a pompous, arrogant ass.
We already have laws against assault, laws against murder, laws against rape, etc.. If I attack a homosexual on Monday and a then attack a heterosexual on Tuesday- I have committed a crime on both days. For this situation, let's suppose I loathe homosexuality. Why is it a worse crime on Monday? Why should I receive harsher punishment? There is no logical reason. It's only purpose is to make people like you "feel" good.
Charging someone with murder vice manslaughter is based on a "thought crime" also. Wanna throw those out?
I have no problem with that. Those laws are applied equally to all persons regardless of race, creed, sexual orientation, etc... Hate crimes laws are not. Apples - Oranges.
Why do you feel that hate crimes are not APPLIED equally to all persons regardless of race, creed, sexual orientation, etc.? Hate crimes make no mention of a specific race, creed, etc. Typically, a hate crime involves "a criminal offense committed against a person, property or society which is motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender's bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin."
If a homosexual attacked a heterosexual, in whole or in part because the homosexual held a bias against heterosexuals, the homosexual person would be prosecuted under hate crime laws. Same if a black person attacked a white person because of racial bias.
And by the way - the correct expression to show an illogical or incorrect comparison is, "apples and ELEPHANTS," not "apples and oranges." Apples and oranges are both fruits. Apples and elephants are different things entirely.
When one uses that expression, they are saying: "You are comparing two things that are totally different and, therefore, your comparison is specious. You might as well be comparing apples to elephants."
No extra charge for the linguistics lesson.
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Zander again.I have no problem with that. Those laws are applied equally to all persons regardless of race, creed, sexual orientation, etc... Hate crimes laws are not. Apples - Oranges.
Why do you feel that hate crimes are not APPLIED equally to all persons regardless of race, creed, sexual orientation, etc.? Hate crimes make no mention of a specific race, creed, etc. Typically, a hate crime involves "a criminal offense committed against a person, property or society which is motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender's bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin."
If a homosexual attacked a heterosexual, in whole or in part because the homosexual held a bias against heterosexuals, the homosexual person would be prosecuted under hate crime laws. Same if a black person attacked a white person because of racial bias.
And by the way - the correct expression to show an illogical or incorrect comparison is, "apples and ELEPHANTS," not "apples and oranges." Apples and oranges are both fruits. Apples and elephants are different things entirely.
When one uses that expression, they are saying: "You are comparing two things that are totally different and, therefore, your comparison is specious. You might as well be comparing apples to elephants."
No extra charge for the linguistics lesson.
Thanks for the lesson is pedantry, you are truly a pompous, arrogant ass.
We already have laws against assault, laws against murder, laws against rape, etc.. If I attack a homosexual on Monday and a then attack a heterosexual on Tuesday- I have committed a crime on both days. For this situation, let's suppose I loathe homosexuality. Why is it a worse crime on Monday? Why should I receive harsher punishment? There is no logical reason. It's only purpose is to make people like you "feel" good.
And why is the person who kills a Black or a gay guy out of hate more evil than the guy who kills the guy who kills his wife because she cheated?
If you even have to ask this question, there is no point in trying to discuss the issue.
Murder is murder and motive does not matter.
A "hate crime" is bullshit. It is essentially a "thought crime". Let's suppose I bludgeoned someone's skull in with a rock. Smashed it open like a watermelon and killed the person. How is it a worse crime if the victim is a homosexual or black? He's still dead. We already have laws for killing people. Imposing additional punishment because the victim is a member of a "special" group is biased.
It's gotten to the point that saying "I hate fags" is a hate crime.
The equal protection clause states that any protection given to one person must be given equally to all so if I were to penalize someone for assault more when the victim happen to be white you are not protecting the citizenary equally since you are staggering different penalties for different races. A person who is white will be more protected from assault than a person who is black.
This is what why the equal protection clause was created because whites were getting protections that other ethnic groups were not. Now we have crimes that are penalized more harshly when they are prejedice in nature this basically gives people who are the victim of hate crimes extra protection. This violates the 14th amendment (when a state law is doing it) and should be removed.
You logic is incorrect here. Hate crimes do not punish assaults. They punish assaults that are commited for racial or ethnic reasons. There is a difference. An assault committed because the actor is angry, could be committed against anyone - white, black or purple. The law fixes the punishment for that, and that punisment will be imposed, regardless of the color of the skin of the victim.
Hate crime legislation only goes into effect when the assault is motivated in whole or in part by the color of the skin of the victim. This is an entirely different type of assault than a "general" assault - where the only motivation for it is anger on the part of the actor.
Hence, a victim who is in a group that is protected by hate crime legislation is not receiving "more protection" than a member of the general propulation, because members of the general population can never be victims of hate crimes. Conversely, someone who receives a harsher punishment for committing a hate crime than someone who commits a "general" assault, is not being discriminated against, because he has committed a more culpable crime than the person who commits an assault merely because of anger.
The whole basis behind hate crime legislation is the idea that an assault committed in whole or in part for racial reasons, is a more culpable crime than an assault committed merely because of anger toward the victim.
The equal protection clause states that any protection given to one person must be given equally to all so if I were to penalize someone for assault more when the victim happen to be white you are not protecting the citizenary equally since you are staggering different penalties for different races. A person who is white will be more protected from assault than a person who is black.
This is what why the equal protection clause was created because whites were getting protections that other ethnic groups were not. Now we have crimes that are penalized more harshly when they are prejedice in nature this basically gives people who are the victim of hate crimes extra protection. This violates the 14th amendment (when a state law is doing it) and should be removed.
You logic is incorrect here. Hate crimes do not punish assaults. They punish assaults that are commited for racial or ethnic reasons. There is a difference. An assault committed because the actor is angry, could be committed against anyone - white, black or purple. The law fixes the punishment for that, and that punisment will be imposed, regardless of the color of the skin of the victim.
Hate crime legislation only goes into effect when the assault is motivated in whole or in part by the color of the skin of the victim. This is an entirely different type of assault than a "general" assault - where the only motivation for it is anger on the part of the actor.
Hence, a victim who is in a group that is protected by hate crime legislation is not receiving "more protection" than a member of the general propulation, because members of the general population can never be victims of hate crimes. Conversely, someone who receives a harsher punishment for committing a hate crime than someone who commits a "general" assault, is not being discriminated against, because he has committed a more culpable crime than the person who commits an assault merely because of anger.
The whole basis behind hate crime legislation is the idea that an assault committed in whole or in part for racial reasons, is a more culpable crime than an assault committed merely because of anger toward the victim.
There should not be a group that is protected by hate crimes because just the idea that you establish groups protected vs groups unprotected establishes inequality in in those protections since one group receives those protections and other do not. When a person is charged with a hate crime they receive stiffer penalties because the victim belonged to a certain group that the offender didn't like. This gives that group protections that another group that the offender didn't hate would not receive thus not all groups are being protected equally. The group that the offender didn't hate could be assaulted without extra penalties that would discourage him from attacking a member of that group thus leaving that group with less protections from the law that the hated group received.
Hence, a victim who is in a group that is protected by hate crime legislation is not receiving "more protection" than a member of the general propulation, because members of the general population can never be victims of hate crimes.
You logic is incorrect here. Hate crimes do not punish assaults. They punish assaults that are commited for racial or ethnic reasons. There is a difference. An assault committed because the actor is angry, could be committed against anyone - white, black or purple. The law fixes the punishment for that, and that punisment will be imposed, regardless of the color of the skin of the victim.
Hate crime legislation only goes into effect when the assault is motivated in whole or in part by the color of the skin of the victim. This is an entirely different type of assault than a "general" assault - where the only motivation for it is anger on the part of the actor.
Hence, a victim who is in a group that is protected by hate crime legislation is not receiving "more protection" than a member of the general propulation, because members of the general population can never be victims of hate crimes. Conversely, someone who receives a harsher punishment for committing a hate crime than someone who commits a "general" assault, is not being discriminated against, because he has committed a more culpable crime than the person who commits an assault merely because of anger.
The whole basis behind hate crime legislation is the idea that an assault committed in whole or in part for racial reasons, is a more culpable crime than an assault committed merely because of anger toward the victim.
There should not be a group that is protected by hate crimes because just the idea that you establish groups protected vs groups unprotected establishes inequality in in those protections since one group receives those protections and other do not. When a person is charged with a hate crime they receive stiffer penalties because the victim belonged to a certain group that the offender didn't like. This gives that group protections that another group that the offender didn't hate would not receive thus not all groups are being protected equally. The group that the offender didn't hate could be assaulted without extra penalties that would discourage him from attacking a member of that group thus leaving that group with less protections from the law that the hated group received.
Hence, a victim who is in a group that is protected by hate crime legislation is not receiving "more protection" than a member of the general propulation, because members of the general population can never be victims of hate crimes.
I said that, didn't I . . . Let me try that again another way. What I was trying to say is that hate crimes are almost always committed by members of the majority against members of a minority. Whites v. blacks. Straights v. gays. I regret using the term "general population." I should have said "the majority." And it is further not necessarily true that members of the majority cannot be victims of hate crimes. Usually, they are the perps, not the victims. But they can be victims.
Hate crime legislation does not protect any specific group. The hate crime laws do not say, "it is a hate crime to attack a black person or a homosexual." The hate crime laws simply say that a crime against "any peson" which is committed in whole or in part because of racial, ethnic or sexual orientation bias, is a hate crime. I don't find any "group" anywhere in there.
There is nothing unequal about hate crime legislation. Where is there any inequality? Can you point it out to me? All hate crime laws do is giver harsher penalties to crimes committed for racial or ethnic reasons. Hence, if I (a white person) am attacked by an Indonesian person because the Indonesian guy hates white people, guess what - the Indonesian guy will be prosecuted for a hate crime. And rightly so! Attacking ME? The son of a . . . .
I can appreciate your position on the issue, but I disagree with the fundamentals. I think the idea of "protected" groups is inherently wrong. If we are ever to move past racism and bigotry we need to end special treatment for "special" groups. We are all Americans, regardless of sexual orientation, race, religion, etc., our laws should reflect that.Why do you feel that hate crimes are not APPLIED equally to all persons regardless of race, creed, sexual orientation, etc.? Hate crimes make no mention of a specific race, creed, etc. Typically, a hate crime involves "a criminal offense committed against a person, property or society which is motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender's bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin."
If a homosexual attacked a heterosexual, in whole or in part because the homosexual held a bias against heterosexuals, the homosexual person would be prosecuted under hate crime laws. Same if a black person attacked a white person because of racial bias.
And by the way - the correct expression to show an illogical or incorrect comparison is, "apples and ELEPHANTS," not "apples and oranges." Apples and oranges are both fruits. Apples and elephants are different things entirely.
When one uses that expression, they are saying: "You are comparing two things that are totally different and, therefore, your comparison is specious. You might as well be comparing apples to elephants."
No extra charge for the linguistics lesson.
Thanks for the lesson is pedantry, you are truly a pompous, arrogant ass.
We already have laws against assault, laws against murder, laws against rape, etc.. If I attack a homosexual on Monday and a then attack a heterosexual on Tuesday- I have committed a crime on both days. For this situation, let's suppose I loathe homosexuality. Why is it a worse crime on Monday? Why should I receive harsher punishment? There is no logical reason. It's only purpose is to make people like you "feel" good.
In order to answer your question, we would have to know why you attacked the homosexual on Monday. If you did not know he was a homosexual, and he had just insulted your wife or some such, then you should not receive any harsher punishment for that than for attacking a heterosexual on Tuesday.
However, if your reason for attacking the homosexual on Monday was motivated in whole or in part by a hatred of homosexuals, then you have committed a hate crime and should receive harsher punishment.
Why? First of all, the legislatures that pass hate crime laws do so because they recognize that someone who attacks another person for reasons of racial, ethnic or sexual orientation bias, is more culpable than someone who attacks another person for the usual reasons people attack others - anger, jealousy, retribution, etc. A racial attack on another person is considered a "worse crime" than an attack out of anger, jealousy, etc.
Why is a racial attack considered a "worse" crime than a "regular" or "usual" (if you will) attack? Probably one of the main reasons is that a member of certain racial or ethnic group has no control over his or her being in that group. Furthermore, there is no rational reason to support a racial attack. If someone insults your wife or shoots your dog, there is at least a rational reason for attacking them, even if such an attack would still be prosecuted.
Apologies for appearing pedantic. While what I said there is absolutely true, I did put it in there with tongue in cheek. In fact, I hunted around for a winking Smiley but was unable to find one. Sorry.
There should not be a group that is protected by hate crimes because just the idea that you establish groups protected vs groups unprotected establishes inequality in in those protections since one group receives those protections and other do not. When a person is charged with a hate crime they receive stiffer penalties because the victim belonged to a certain group that the offender didn't like. This gives that group protections that another group that the offender didn't hate would not receive thus not all groups are being protected equally. The group that the offender didn't hate could be assaulted without extra penalties that would discourage him from attacking a member of that group thus leaving that group with less protections from the law that the hated group received.
Hence, a victim who is in a group that is protected by hate crime legislation is not receiving "more protection" than a member of the general propulation, because members of the general population can never be victims of hate crimes.
I said that, didn't I . . . Let me try that again another way. What I was trying to say is that hate crimes are almost always committed by members of the majority against members of a minority. Whites v. blacks. Straights v. gays. I regret using the term "general population." I should have said "the majority." And it is further not necessarily true that members of the majority cannot be victims of hate crimes. Usually, they are the perps, not the victims. But they can be victims.
Hate crime legislation does not protect any specific group. The hate crime laws do not say, "it is a hate crime to attack a black person or a homosexual." The hate crime laws simply say that a crime against "any peson" which is committed in whole or in part because of racial, ethnic or sexual orientation bias, is a hate crime. I don't find any "group" anywhere in there.
There is nothing unequal about hate crime legislation. Where is there any inequality? Can you point it out to me? All hate crime laws do is giver harsher penalties to crimes committed for racial or ethnic reasons. Hence, if I (a white person) am attacked by an Indonesian person because the Indonesian guy hates white people, guess what - the Indonesian guy will be prosecuted for a hate crime. And rightly so! Attacking ME? The son of a . . . .
you are far more patient with her than i am.
I can appreciate your position on the issue, but I disagree with the fundamentals. I think the idea of "protected" groups is inherently wrong. If we are ever to move past racism and bigotry we need to end special treatment for "special" groups. We are all Americans, regardless of sexual orientation, race, religion, etc., our laws should reflect that.
PS - I specifically chose the words "apples and oranges" because we are discussing "LAW" - Different "fruits" within the law. Apples and elephants would apply if there was no commonality!!!
You logic is incorrect here. Hate crimes do not punish assaults. They punish assaults that are commited for racial or ethnic reasons. There is a difference. An assault committed because the actor is angry, could be committed against anyone - white, black or purple. The law fixes the punishment for that, and that punisment will be imposed, regardless of the color of the skin of the victim.
Hate crime legislation only goes into effect when the assault is motivated in whole or in part by the color of the skin of the victim. This is an entirely different type of assault than a "general" assault - where the only motivation for it is anger on the part of the actor.
Hence, a victim who is in a group that is protected by hate crime legislation is not receiving "more protection" than a member of the general propulation, because members of the general population can never be victims of hate crimes. Conversely, someone who receives a harsher punishment for committing a hate crime than someone who commits a "general" assault, is not being discriminated against, because he has committed a more culpable crime than the person who commits an assault merely because of anger.
The whole basis behind hate crime legislation is the idea that an assault committed in whole or in part for racial reasons, is a more culpable crime than an assault committed merely because of anger toward the victim.
There should not be a group that is protected by hate crimes because just the idea that you establish groups protected vs groups unprotected establishes inequality in in those protections since one group receives those protections and other do not. When a person is charged with a hate crime they receive stiffer penalties because the victim belonged to a certain group that the offender didn't like. This gives that group protections that another group that the offender didn't hate would not receive thus not all groups are being protected equally. The group that the offender didn't hate could be assaulted without extra penalties that would discourage him from attacking a member of that group thus leaving that group with less protections from the law that the hated group received.
Hence, a victim who is in a group that is protected by hate crime legislation is not receiving "more protection" than a member of the general propulation, because members of the general population can never be victims of hate crimes.
I said that, didn't I . . . Let me try that again another way. What I was trying to say is that hate crimes are almost always committed by members of the majority against members of a minority. Whites v. blacks. Straights v. gays. I regret using the term "general population." I should have said "the majority." And it is further not necessarily true that members of the majority cannot be victims of hate crimes. Usually, they are the perps, not the victims. But they can be victims.
Hate crime legislation does not protect any specific group. The hate crime laws do not say, "it is a hate crime to attack a black person or a homosexual." The hate crime laws simply say that a crime against "any peson" which is committed in whole or in part because of racial, ethnic or sexual orientation bias, is a hate crime. I don't find any "group" anywhere in there.
There is nothing unequal about hate crime legislation. Where is there any inequality? Can you point it out to me? All hate crime laws do is giver harsher penalties to crimes committed for racial or ethnic reasons. Hence, if I (a white person) am attacked by an Indonesian person because the Indonesian guy hates white people, guess what - the Indonesian guy will be prosecuted for a hate crime. And rightly so! Attacking ME? The son of a . . . .
There is plenty unequal about hatecrimes legislation because the perpetrator will attack one group less than another thus creating unequal protection of that law even though it is not written that way. A good example is if a skinhead wants to go out and beat up someone and he sees a black person. He chooses not to attack that black person because and then goes out to assault a non-hated group like another white person. Can you say that people who belong to the non-hated group are being protected equally? Of course not! The law itself creates one group, the group he hates, as the more protected group because of harsher penalties and groups that he does not hate recieve lesser penalties.
Here is another example. Someone who is rich might get mugged more than someone who is poor so should we create two classes of felonies. One class for the average joe that only get a regular sentencing but since rich people are going to be mugged more often then we have to create harsher penalties for them. Then you get two levels of protection where the rich will not be assaulted as often as the poor because of the harsher penalties. The question is doesn't the average joe deserve as much protection over his property as the rich person?
I can appreciate your position on the issue, but I disagree with the fundamentals. I think the idea of "protected" groups is inherently wrong. If we are ever to move past racism and bigotry we need to end special treatment for "special" groups. We are all Americans, regardless of sexual orientation, race, religion, etc., our laws should reflect that.
It is interesting to consider whether a statute that makes no mention of any group, in fact does protect only a certain group or groups. As I have said to death on this thread, hate crime laws simply make it a crime to commit any crime against "any person" motivated by racial bias. So, on its face, a hate crime statute does not single out any group.
However, in practice, we know that hate crime laws DO protect certain groups within our society. So I guess the core question is: is that a good idea? And I think you're right. At this point, it gets down to basic fundamentals. I happen to think it is a good idea. I have never liked bullies and bullies are the guys who commit hate crimes. I don't think too many people will condone the image of a group of cretins, dragging some poor guy to death behind a pickup truck merely because he is black, homosexual or whatever.
I know, I know - we already have punishments for that kind of stuff. But, to me, there just is something "worse" about crimes that are committed for reasons of racial prejudice. To me, those crimes are more culpable and simply should merit harsher punishment.
So many of the issues we love to kick around on boards like this really boil down to fundamental beliefs. I suspect this is one of them. Abortion and the death penalty are similar type issues. There are valid arguments on both sides of such issues - although I will never concede that hate crime laws violate the equal protection clause because they simply do not.
PS - I specifically chose the words "apples and oranges" because we are discussing "LAW" - Different "fruits" within the law. Apples and elephants would apply if there was no commonality!!!
Fair enough.